tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 14, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
we must sign a light on dark pools, conduct a searching examining of high-frequency trading strategies to ensure that they're not manipulative, ban flash orders and ensure that broker dealers are acting in the best interest of their clients. madam president, i know as well as anyone the benefits of free market. i know that technology, innovation and competition are critical components of economic growth, but we must balance those interests, madam president, against the values of fairness and equal opportunity. we must bring back a level playing field, encourage long-term investment, and help our economy grow. i'm not here today, madam president, to stand in the way of progress. i do not wish to return to a horse-and-buggy system. high-frequency training and the rise of machines as economists call it are here to stay. i don't want to ban them. i don't want to slow them down.
technological development should not control our regulatory destiny. rather, our regulatory agents should ensure that technological progress everywhere bring benefit to long-term investors. and where the interest of the two are in conflict our regulators must stop the practice of professional short thaeurdz that -- traders that harm the practice of long-term investors. the market should not enshrine or permit -- neither should these exclusions that protect investor interest like reinstatement of some uptick or the need for naked short selling once and for all remain unused primarily in deference to the desires and convenience of high-frequency traders. for our part, we in congress need to undertake a fundamental view of the oversight responsibilities we give to
regulators, examining, whether they have adequate tools to carry out these responsibilities. we have become complacent in thinking that continually updating our body of regulations is enough when in reality we perhaps have failed to provide regulators with the necessary tools they need to observe these complex financial institutions. so, on this first anniversary of lehman brothers' collapse, i conclude by saying i look forward to working with my colleagues not only to address the financial crisis of the past but also to scrutinize and begin to correct the financial abuses of the present so we can avoid the problems of the future. madam president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated so i can speak on the pending amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: madam president, at 5:30 this afternoon, in just a few minutes, we're going to vote on the pending amendment, which is an amendment to bar acorn from receiving any money from the appropriations bill that we are considering. i spoke earlier today, so i'll only speak a couple of minutes today. i wanted to come to the senate floor again to underscore the importance of this vote and to underscore the history that brings us here today to take this action. the history is a sad history. on september 9, 2009, miami dade
prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 11 acorn employees. the employees are charged with falsifying voter registration cards. a total of 1,400 voter registration cards were turned in in 888 of those were found to be fake that. means that almost three-quarters of those cards were fraudulent. late last week damaging news surfaced regarding hidden videotapes at the new york, the baltimore, and the washington, d.c. acorn offices. what does it feature on these videotapes? it features acorn employees offering advice on a number of illegal activities, including tax evasion, prostitution, and fraud, all with taxpayer dollars. finally, the census bureau notified acorn on friday in a letter that it was severing all
ties. the census bureau has had a belly full. they severed all ties with this group having to do with the 2010 census, and here's what they said in the letter: "it is clear that acorn's affiliation with the 2010 census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting the 2010 census effort." the letter goes on to say, "unfortunately, we no longer have confidence that our national partnership agreement is being effectively managed through your many local offices. for the reasons stated, we, therefore, have decided to terminate the partnership." according to a report published in july by the minority staff of the house committee on oversight and government reform -- and i'm
quoting -- "operationally, acorn is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states, and the district of columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. structurally acorn is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who service pawns to take the fall for every bad act." unquote. well, it doesn't stop there. in 1998, an acorn employee was arrested for falsifying voter registration forms. in 1999, philadelphia authorities found hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by acorn. in october of 2008, acorn's
nevada offices were raided by federal agents. and in 2009, their las vegas field director was charged -- their field director -- unbelievable -- their field director was charged with voter registration fraud. in may 2009, acorn workers were charged in pittsburgh for voter registration fraud. to date, madam president, nearly 70 acorn employees have been convicted in 12 states for voter registration fraud. the events of the last week are not isolated. we've only caught them. as judge richard disuller said, "after holding an acorn employee liable for election law violations," and i i'm quoting, "somebody has to go after acorn." unquote. madam president, i suggest this afternoon that that somebody is
each and every member of the united states senate. until a full investigation is launched into acorn, no taxpayer money should be used to fund their activities. a vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and against the status quo. madam president, i'll just wrap up by saying, "if somehow we could bring the taxpayers of america to the senate floor and ask them, do you want your taxpayer dollars to continue to fund this organization with this kind of history, with the videos that have been just released, overwhelmingly, taxpayers would say "absolutely not." this is our opportunity to stand up against an organization that does not deserve the trust of the american people. thank you, madam president.
the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 83, and the nays are seven. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. so ruled. the senate will be in order. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, for the information of our colleagues, my counterpart, senator bond and i, have been on the floor thursday afternoon, thursday evening, friday, and this afternoon into this evening today. we are waiting for members to
bring their amendments to the floor. for the information of all senators, there will not be votes after 3:00 tomorrow, as everyone knows, but we intend to finish this bill by wednesday so there's not a lot of floor time tomorrow. if you have an amendment, offer it tonight. we will set up the vote for tomorrow an wednesday, but we intend to finish this bill by wednesday. so do not hang back and expect your amendments will have time after that. i would ask our members who do have amendments to -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. murray: i do ask all of our members who have filed amendments to bring them to the floor, offer them so we can get them considered and get them up for votes. again, it's going to be a short week and we need to get this bill done by wednesday. i would ask everybody to please consider that and offer our amendments so we can get this bill moving. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.
madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 264 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution, 264 -- the presiding officer: the clerk will please take your conversations outside. the senate will be in order for the senator from connecticut. the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 264 designating the caucus room of the russell senate office building as the kennedy caucus room. whereas during the last century few rooms have borne witness to
as much history as the caucus room of the russell senate office building. whereas during the last century few families have played as integral a role in the history of the united states as has the kennedy family. whereas the senate mourns the passing of senator edward moore kennedy, one of the most accomplished, effective and beloved senators of all time. whereas senator edward moore kennedy played a role in every major national debate during the last 50 years -- serving as a constant champion of the disadvantaged and overlooked. whereas, the legacy of senator edward moore kennedy includes not only his prolific achievements on behalf of the people of the united states but the enduring friendships he formed with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. whereas, the wit and passion of senator edward moore kennedy and his perseverance in the face of adversity will be remembered in equal measure to his impressive legislative and rhetorical skills. whereas, senator edward moore kennedy was part of a proud family tradition of public
service which included two other distinguished senators. whereas, never before have three brothers served in the senate 6 and rarely have any three brothers served the united states so well. whereas, john fitzgerald kennedy served the people of massachusetts with distinction in the senate before being elected the 35th president of the united states. whereas, robert francis kennedy served the people of new york with distinct in the senate after serving as the 64th attorney general. whereas, edward moore kennedy served the people of massachusetts with distinction in the senate for nearly half a century, acting as a tireless advocate for those who might otherwise have been without an advocate. whereas, the senate has been greatly enriched by the dedication, compassion, and talent of the three kennedy brothers who served as senators. whereas, in the caucus room of the russell senate office building, the people of the united states have commemorated tragedy, celebrated triumph, and held hearings of great importance on the most important
issues facing the nation. whereas, it was in the caucus room of the russell senate office building that both senator john fitzgerald kennedy and senator robert francis kennedy announced their intention to run for the office of the president of the united states. whereas, a spirit of passionate advocacy and deep respect for the institution of the senate should govern the deliberations that take place in the caucus room of the russell senate office building and, whereas, the senate wishes to honor the life and work of senator h edwad moore kennedy, to recognize the contributions of the three kennedy brothers who served as senators, and to celebrate the spirit of public service exemplified by the kennedy family. now, therefore, be it resolved that the senate designates room 325 of the russell senate office building, commonly referred to as the caucus room, as the kennedy caucus room in roiftion threcognition of the service to the senate and the people of the united states of senators edward moore kennedy, robert francis kennedy and john fitzgerald kennedy. mr. dodd: madam president, i want to if i may just --
the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. dodd: madam president, i just want to take a second and thank, first of all, the majority leader, senator reid, for his support in this effort. i want to recognize as well our colleague from massachusetts, senator kerry, who is my lead responser in this particular effort and obviously a very close and dear personal friend for many, many years of ted kennedy. and to thank our colleagues. we're joined by the presence of our colleague from the other body, senator ted kennedy's son patrick, who serves with great distinction in the other body. and i'm pleased he's with us here at this moment to watch this resolution be adopted. so with that, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.
mr. kerry: i want to thank the distinguished senator from connecticut. there is no closer or better friend to ted kennedy than chris dodd, and i admire and respect his many efforts in the senate to fight the fights in the spirit of ted kennedy. this could not be more appropriate and i don't think anything more needs to be said. but i thank him and i thank the majority leader. it's wonderful to have patrick here -- congressman kennedy, on the floor of the united states senate, to share in this. thank you. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. last week, and i -- i'm thrilled, of course, to join senator kerry and senator dodd and congressman kennedy in honoring patrick's father and the kennedy family in the used to be russell caucus chamber, that caucus room. there's no -- there's no more
appropriate place, i believe, to honor senator kennedy than right there. last week in cincinnati, president obama joined thousands of ohioans at the nation's largest labor day picnic. ohioans gathered together to celebrate our history of workers who transitioned our nation from one industry to the next, sustaining our economy, creating the middle class, and strengthening the middle class. it's time once again to invest in our workers. it's time to invest in a national manufacturing policy. as ohioans understand, manufacturing for so many is a ticket to the middle class, and ohioans understand that a strong middle class makes a strong nation. that's why american workers deserve a manufacturing strategy that works for them. first, we must invest in manufacturing innovation. we should make research and development tax credits permanent to incentivize investment and emerging manufacturing industries like clean energy so that the tax system is predictable, so
investors will bring money forward, especially for capital intensive industries like -- capital intensive industries that create jobs like wind and solar manufacturing. second, a national manufacturing strategy must strengthen our component supply chain. companies that make the parts for cars and trucks should be able to expand to make component parts for other industries, like clean energy and aerospace and biotechnology. if a company can make glass for a truck, they can make glass for solar panels. if a company can make gears for a car, they can make gears for a -- they can make gear boxes for wind turbines. the investments for manufacturing progress in clean technology, the impact act that i introduced four months ago would provide a $30 billion resolving loan fund to help component part manufacturers transition to the clean energy economy. third, we must better connect workers with jobs in emerging industries. earlier this year i introduced the strengthening employment clusters to organize regional
success act which would allow local communities to determine their work force needs from the bottom up. work force investment boards, working with local businesses, working with local community colleges, working with local organized labor could determine what they want to specialize in region by region by region, even within a state. that way workers will be retrained for jobs that actually exist, that are productive and that build the middle class. fourth, there must be improved federal assistance for economically distressed communities. when a major plant closing results in massive job loss and economic decline, there must be a coordinated federal response like we're trying to do in wilmington, ohio, in response to the closing of d.h.l., the same way that base closing -- that the federal government responds to -- to disastrous base closings, disastrous in terms of what it does to a local community. in the same way the federal response to help a community recover from a devastating flood or tornado. fifth, a national manufacturing
strategy must revamp how our nation does trade, must include fair trade policies that promote american manufacturing and levels the playing field for workers and products alike. i applaud the president's decision friday night to stand up and enforce fair trade rules that will save jobs, that will help our communities, that will strengthen the middle class. since china joined the world trade organization, american workers have not been assured that the government would defend them against unfair trade. with this section 421 decision, a section of trade law that china agreed to during the permanent normal trade relations debate, with this section 421 decision, president obama's taken the side of american workers and american manufacturers. if american workers and manufacturers are going to compete in the global market, they need to have a government that uses the trade enforcement tools that exist, including the section 421 safeguard.
as part of becoming a member of w.t.o., as i said, about a decade ago, china agreed to this so-called section 421 safeguard. four times it's been invoked by the -- by the -- or been suggested by the international trade commission, a bipartisan generally free trade arm of the federal government, four times president bush backed off and let china have its way. this is the first president who stood up on this issue to actually enforce the trade laws that exist on the books to make our trade policy fairer and to help american workers. the data in this case on tires makes clear that american workers are getting crushed by a surge in tire imports from chi china. imports of these products more than doubled in volume and tripled in dollar value in only a four-year period. during this time, domestic production obviously declined. manufacturers couldn't sell their high-quality products, orders dropped. in many cases, there was no choice but to slow or even halt
production. take, for example, workers at the denman tire company located in le levitsberg, high high, and i've been to that plant. that this plant has been in operation for almost a hundred years, produces a variety of tires. about half of its units per day capacity is dedicated to the passenger and light truck tires that are subject to thi of thise investigation. facility employs 270 men and women in good-paying, skill jobs that strengthen the middle class. and take, for example, workers at the cooper tire and rubber facility in finley, ohio. there are over 1,100 workers there and produce some 22,000 units per day. the cooper facility has been in operation also for almost a century. it's time our trade policies reflect our national interest, that we don't practice trade according to a textbook that was out of print 20 years ago, and it's time our trade laws were enforced to promote our goods and services and our auto
communities. tomorrow the president travels to lordstown, ohio, a northeast ohio community not far from youngstown, where g.m. workers are building the next generation fuel-efficient vehicles, the most fuel-efficient vehicles in the g.m. fleet. increased production of these vehicles invests in ohio's workers, invests in the future of our domestic auto industry. we have a rare opportunity to reinvigorate manufacturing by helping to build demand for products and technologies in a brand-new industry. we haven't had an opportunity like this in 40 years. we can build a new industry that will help end global warming and create goodwill and will -- and -- to rebuild our fitting that's manufacturing backbone. we can build on our auto industry, which in my state has been a leading economic engine for all kinds of next-generation manufacturing. when you look at a g.m. factory in parma outside of cleveland or a chrysler factory in toledo, you're also seeing the genesis of next-generation manufacturing jobs up and down the ohio
turnpike as it chris-crosses the state from west of toledo in williams county to the pennsylvania border year near youngstown. but you see jobs in the aerospace industry, jobs in the component parts industry, the largest industry still in america, auto parts, auto components, auto supply parts. you can even see jobs in the soap industry all coming out of the auto industry. these jobs are created out of america's manufacturing ingenuity and entrepreneurship. plain and simple, madam president, as we work to build more fuel-efficient automobiles, we'll expand opportunities for new manufacturing jobs that become part of the green jobs supply chain. and again, this must -- this manufacturing strategy must include rigorous trade enforcement. i'm struck, madam president, by the chorus of voices from editorial boards, from the conventional wisdom think-tanks that warn against creeping protectionism. safe to say, nobody o none of te editorial writers and none of these think-tank academicians
have ever lost their job because of trade agreements or ever lost their job because of unfair trade practices. these think-tanks, these -- these think tank academicians, these editorial board members are confusing protectionism with pragmatism. utilizing trade remedies under limited circumstances, as the president did, as provided for under international trade rules is not protectionism, it's simply enforcing the law. enforcement of trade remedy laws consistent with w.t.o. rules again is not protectionism. most americans recognize that trade plays an important role in creating opportunities for economic growth, but when our trade deficit is bumped up against $2 billion a day for much of the last several years -- $2 million we buy more -- $2 million more in products than we sell abroad, all -- about a third of that bilaterally with china alone, you know something is not working. american workers and businesses have an entrepreneurial spirit
and can compete with anyone. they also need to look to new markets to sustain economic growth. american workers compete with anyone but they must rely on this government to enforce fair trade practices. done right, a national manufacturing policy can reinvest in our workers' capacity to build next-generation technologies and can rebuild our next generation of middle-class families. one thing is certain, madam president: it is time to invest in the workers and the communities that are the backbone of our middle class. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: i the senator from or oar. a senator: i ask that the senate judiciary committee be discharged officer. officerrer will the senator suspend? a senator: yes, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committing discharged from further conversation senate resolution 258, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 258, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the university of wisconsin la crosse. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the subcommittee discharged. and the senate will proceed to the final vote. -- to the measure. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening oorks debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution resolution 2658 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 265, honoring the firefighters who sacrificed their lives while battling the station fire in southern california in august 2009. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. he mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, tuesday, september 15. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business for one hour, with the time equally divided and
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 153, h.r. 3288, transportation-h.u.d. appropriations. finally, i ask that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus lunches. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
>> supreme court week with the justices starting october 4th on c-span. and go on line for a virtual tour of the court, historic photos and more at c-span.org/supremecourt. topics at today's state department briefing include efforts to engage in nuclear talks with iran and north korea. a spokesman at iain kelly talked with reporters for about 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. good afternoon. let me just first of all highlight this morning under secretary for management pat kennedy briefed the commission on bulk wartime contract in. the department is also briefing relevant congressional committees on huessy we are
addressing misconduct by security contract and secretary kennedy reported 165 employees, despite the ongoing investigation, 12 guards have been removed or have resigned. the entire senior management team in kabul is being replaced. and assistant rso has been full time at the contractor's camp and as you know alcohol has been banned. he also walked the commission through a number of steps we have taken since 2007 to address some of the deficiencies in the contract. let me just say he stressed several key points. first he underscored secretary clinton, ambassador eikenberry and senior leadership of the department were outraged by the misconduct of the contractors and of course they have ordered
immediate and strong action. second, despite the administrative deficiency discussed with the contractor, the department did not observe a egregious security of the mission in kabul. through the constant oversight and contracting officers, diplomatic security on the ground couple felt that the administrative contract deficiencies did not jeopardize the security and safety of my colleagues in kabul. and more broadly, cicatrix clinton has directed both state department and usaid to review the alliance on contractors across the board. she has made it a priority to build up the capacity both agencies when appropriate to take on tasks now being outsourced. these questions will be a big part of the qddr process we
began a while back and will also be a big part of our discussions with congress. and finally, while the broad review is move forward, the department will redouble its efforts to insure contractors are performing in accord with policies and values at all times. so with that -- >> remind me again with the "q" and qddr stands for. >> it's the quadrennial. >> that would take four years, right? >> this is part of the process we are beginning. it's part of the overall process of the quadrennial diplomatic and development. >> so you're saying that -- >> i'm not saying it is going to take four years if that's what you're asking. >> so quadrennial doesn't really mean quadrennial? >> it means -- it is a process of looking out over four years across the board of our
diplomatic mission. >> it looks ahead? >> sari? >> it looks ahead for years? >> it looks ahead for years, yes. >> why last week p. jset, i think it was thursday, that there had been people from this contract that are dismissed from this contract prior to these 12 cards over the course of the four years since 2005. >> right. >> he didn't have a number then and i wonder if you have a number now. >> i'm afraid i don't have that number. this is something the you asked on thursday? >> it was thursday, yes. he said there had been people who had been removed earlier than -- dennett just after this latest -- why don't we have the number? >> i'm sorry we don't. i will see if i can get you the number. >> the other thing, pat kennedy said was that they were imamism were seriously looking at terminating the contract with
our mur group on this. why has that not been done yet? i mean, has the investigation progress? if you've dismissed 12 guards after this latest incident why hasn't it progressed to the point now where we are more than a week afterwards -- to the point where you can make a determination that this company is not suitable for -- >> i think first of all as we've said many times our main priority for this process in this review is to make sure our colleagues in kabul are safe, and this -- if we do decide at some point to terminate this we have to make sure that the mission in kabul is more than adequately secured -- >> its contracts would be ending before you had replacements for them. >> but that was part of the process of renewing the contract. let me just finish what i was going to say. there are a number of factors.
the most important one is the security of the embassy. i think other factories then you've got -- the majority of the guards that are doing their job and doing it well. sell we need to look at that aspect of this. and then i think the other aspect is we do have a contract. and there are certain procedures and legal steps we have to take. >> the contract with blackwater which you told them you were not going to review, before you had a replacement in baghdad of the embassy workers there was never compromised and you also had a vast majority of the cards not going around shooting civilians. so i am not quite sure -- >> it was a different process in place than. we made the decision for what it's worth in june to extend the
contract. we hadn't come to that point with black water, and as i understand it. so this ase -- we are at different places in the contract allows -- again contractor will call. but as we understand it, that's the difference. any others? >> different subject. as far as china is concerned, there's a lot of things going on. one, there is a presidential delegation going to to that meeting -- i mean, to india to meet with the dalai lama and his people. and also there's some -- and on arrest also going on in china, many parts of china, some demonstrations and all that. so what do we have as far as what is going on? >> in terms of the presidential delegation that you're referring
to that is in india now, the white house is about -- i don't know if they are going to issue a statement or if they are just going to issue -- going to respond to questions that come up regarding the delegation that is in india now. so i will refer you to that. re to v m rest going on in china, as we have said many times, we are monitoring the situation in xinjiang very closely. we have called upon the chinese authorities to deal with this -- the on dressed in a transparent and lawful fashion. >> but there's also a warning -- travel warning from the state department to china. i have not seen many years -- from this building or from the u.s. any warning to china. >> i'm not sure if it's a warning or an advisory, but there's a difference of course
between the two. one of our -- was our top priorities in terms of our consular responsibilities to advise american citizens on the situation in areas where they may travel. and of course, it's our responsibility to inform u.s. citizens who may be planning to travel to a region like xinjiang that there have been -- that there is this tension and occasional and rest. so it is our responsibility to update american citizens on the situation on the ground. this is all -- this is something that we do almost every day, i think, and sometimes several times a day. >> [inaudible] >> travel advisory. >> travel alert? >> sorry. >> travel alert, okay. maldon zenas travel warning.
>> unrest in the trade relations with china what is the state department role in dealing with this? >> use of the announcement from the white house. the president signed an determination to increase duty on certain goods. we believe the remedy that we have crafted that the announcement from the white house will address the surge tie your imports and a way that falls fully within the scope of our trade agreement with china. and of course we support the rules based trading system and that means that those rules need to be applied, so that is why we decided to apply them. >> but my question is what is the state department's role in this? have you -- have there been any
discussions with the chinese about this? >> i think there has been and a ustr track. they've been talking to their counterparts in beijing. i'm not aware that -- that we have had any discussions on a political level with -- >> are you concerned at all with the chinese might view this as some -- as a kind of hostile act and mike frattali and other ways have done through their wto filing? in terms of buying treasurys -- >> there is a system that set up to address these come and we will act within that system. >> but you're not concerned that this will have any -- that this will have a broader effect on u.s.-china relations? >> i mean, as i said before we are looking at this very closely and we did and see this as being in any way contradictory to the tree agreement that we have with
china. >> i'm talking about more broadly. there is no -- is there any concern that this was going to have an impact on broader u.s.-china relations? >> i'm not aware of any deep concerns that we have. we've done this complete transparency with our chinese interlocutors in beijing and we just, we will let the process play out. >> iran this decision to hold talks with vp five plus one on october 1st -- doesn't avoid the u.n. general assembly? you can't really raise it and debate there. >> i think we still need to meet with ravee p-5+1 partners intend to meet during the u.n. general assembly. and the point is to sit down with the iranians and explain directly, face-to-face the choice they have. we've explained the choice is.
they can go down one path which leads to integration with international community, or they can continue down another path which lead to isolation. and that's the path we are concerned they are all now because they are not meeting their obligations to the international community. and we plan to address the issue of they're not living up to their obligations head on. we -- this is going to be front and center in our talks with them on october 1st. and we are not planning to start a whole new process here. this is just going to -- we are going to sit down and have the opportunity to explain to them directly with their choice is. >> you're not going to have much to work with at the u.n. since the talks with iran are going to be leader. >> well, i mean, it is a chance for us all to sit down once again, and talk through these concerns that we all have and discuss the best means for us all to get our common goal, and
that is to make sure that -- that iran understands that it has obligations as well as rights, and that's the obligations are to provide more transparency into this nuclear program that they've started. >> any information on where the talks might be held and who might represent the u.s. site? >> no decisions have been made regarding the then you. it's not going to be -- it won't be in the u.s.. it's going to be in some third location. and that will be worked out with mr. solana's office. >> and representing the u.s., anyone? >> it will be the political director level so that will be under secretary burns. >> i'm not -- you were going to use this to sit down and explain to the armenians exactly the
choice to have to make or the choice they face? >> we haven't had that opportunity for quite awhile. >> don't you think the iranians are fully aware of the choice? they have thumbed their noses at it and it is this thing going back to the prior administration. what makes you think that somehow now they are going to be willing to take it? >> because we plan to highlight the then -- >> you don't think the last administration did that? >> what we see in public is one thing. what we see in -- what we hear in private is another. so the six members on the p-5+1, we are united in this common goal of getting the iranians to introduce more transparency into their nuclear program. and now as i said, we are not interested in a process that's going to go on forever --
>> will actually using -- >> -- but actually, we want to take this opportunity -- >> you seem to be. >> well, i don't agree. we have a duatrack policy, and we've been pursuing one of those tracks. it's time now to pursue the other one. >> the dual track policy goes back years. and it hasn't produced any results yet, and the armenians say specifically that they are not interested in talking about their nuclear program. >> well, we are going to talk about it and i don't -- >> and they're going to, you know, put their hands over their years and say i can't hear you. >> we hope the six of us can really lay out to them in a very stark fashion the choice that they have and take this opportunity to debate. >> for some reason -- for some reason you think they don't understand? >> the, we are under no illusions about the sirenians. >> well, i know.
>> but we have an opportunity here to present a united front -- the five permanent members of the security council plus germany -- to show that the international community wants them to abandon their nuclear -- any plans they have for militarization and their nuclear program. >> all right. well, you will accept, though, that for the past several years this is the same message the iranians have been getting, yes? >> i will accept that, sure. like i say -- >> there is an unrelated --; related thing. there's a report in the year on the u.s. is prepared to sell them plains, boeing planes and spare parts. have you heard anything about that? >> not true. not true. >> what is an accurate? >> they were selling them spare parts on boeing planes.
>> what is the u.s. position on whether the pakistanis can use -- >> is their anything else on iran? >> a moment ago you said something interesting i wanted to ask you about. you said what we say in public and here in private are not necessarily the same -- >> no camano -- >> can you clarify that? >> i didn't phrase that very well. [laughter] what nations say in public is one thing and what they say in public is another thing. i'm sorry, i was a little lax in my phraseology there. >> fair enough, but does that suggest that something you are hitting in private gives you more optimism about the profitability of these talks and what you were hearing a public? >> no, i am not trying to suggest that. i'm just trying -- what i am highlighting here is that we want to explore this than ave. we want to have this opportunity to sit down with them and for us to present the international
community's the five concerns directly face-to-face to the iranians. >> okay. and then one last iran-related question. and i apologize if this has come up in previous briefings and i didn't see it. but hugo chavez was quoted as saying that venezuela wanted to pursue a peaceful nuclear program with help from russia. >> yeah. >> and there's obviously been a long and close association between venezuela and iran, close allies. is there any concern about technology transfers or nuclear transfers on the u.s. part between iran and venezuela? >> yeah. the short answer is, that yes, we do have concerns. we have concerns in general about venezuela's stated desire to increase its arms buildup, which we think poses a serious challenge to the stability in the western hemisphere. what they are looking to purchase and what they're purchasing outpaces all other countries and south america. and of course, we are concerned
about an arms race in the region. and we urge venezuela to be transparent in its purchase and be very clear about the purposes of these purchases. and we are also very concerned that they put in place very clear procedures and safeguards that the -- that these arms are not diverted to any regular or illegal organizations in the region. >> well, what about the nuclear -- this idea of a nuclear program? >> yes, i have seen -- yeah, i think i saw a press report on that. venezuela is a signatory of the npt. it has certain obligations, of course, under the npt for any civilian nuclear program. and of course, we will be looking closely at this. but beyond that, let me see if i can -- if i can get you some
information from our -- from the people who follow these things day-to-day. >> okay. >> you had -- >> -- venezuela. did we answer your question or -- >> no. in the and pakistan. >> and pakistan, yeah. >> the question was about what's the u.s. position on -- obviously, the u.s. has given a lot of military aid to pakistan over the years. what's the u.s. position on whether pakistan can use that against -- or defending itself in a situation with india? >> well, i think any time that we sell arms or provide the means to sell arms, we put in place but i was just talking about with venezuela, that we have -- we put in place safeguards and monitoring mechanisms to make sure that these weapons are used for the intended and agreed to purpose. and this is the same for pakistan as well.
>> are you saying that the u.s. is selling weapons to venezuela. >> no, no pity i'm sorry. i was referring to, when i was talking about arms sales to venezuela, that we would hope that they would have in place the kind of safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that we have when we sell arms. >> can we stay in india -- >> can i follow up on a question related? musharraf has said in interviews in the last couple days that he actually did take u.s. provided arms and move them to india front. do you have reaction to that? >> first of all, musharraf is a
private citizen. he provided very few details. so we refer you to him to get these kind of details. but i will say as general principle we take very serious -- very seriously any allegation of using u.s. origin military assistance for purposes other than we had already agreed to and that we had intended for them. >> do you think there is any recourse, and are you worried about the diplomatic implications of what the former president is saying? >> well, again, this is -- is a very broad statement with no specifics that i know of. and we would just need, i think, to have more details about that -- >> was there -- windel weapons were sold to pakistan, was there an understanding or a profession that they would not be used against india? >> malae -- >> who did you think they were going to fight?
they had three words. >> yeah, well, again, i don't know all of these hills what mr. musharraf said. but i believe that he was referring to this most recent assistance to help fight religious extremists in pakistan. so i think that was the intent of his latest round any way. but i just -- i don't know exactly what he was referring to. >> can i follow up? did all this come up with the secretary's meeting with the indian foreign minister when they met here in the state department? >> i don't know the answer to that. and if i can give you the answer -- i will promise that all i can get to the answer -- i will give you the answer. >> so there are some follow-up implications to this? you're saying we need more details. >> yeah. >> so how do you go about doing that? >> well, again, this is a former president who's made these allegations come and we take seriously any allegations like this. but we simply don't have the details to be able to respond to
the allegations. >> bill will there be follow-up from you, in terms of looking at this? i mean, here is a former president. >> i'm not sure. as i say, we take these things very seriously. >> you have any specific instances of such violations by pakistan? >> i'm sorry? >> you have any specific instances of violations with pakistan? >> not that i'm aware of. >> i have a question about the journalists -- recently and afghan journalist was killed but the foreign journalists were saved by the nato forces. in afghanistan media they showed very negative reaction that -- why there is a discrimination against the afghan journalists? one of -- get safe and released and the afghan journalist was killed. >> yeah. i think there is -- what you're referring to is unfortunate and our condolences to families of
-- are you referring to "the new york times" journalist who -- >> yes. >> i think it is an ongoing investigation to determine how exactly this afghan journalists died. and of course, we condemn, first of all, the fact that they were kidnapped and taken and that we -- that british forces were put in the kind of position where they had to go in and free them. but it was a an extremely unfortunate incident. >> regarding the prime minister netanyahu, he just said today that the settlement construction will not freeze at all and rejecting the u.s. call for that. i was just wondering where to negotiations moved on from now, and if the u.s. thinks that he's not committed to a peace process with the palestinians? beah well, first of all, let me just take this opportunity to update you where we are without
work talks. you know that senator mitchell is in israel today. today he attended the funeral of assaf ramon, who is an israeli pilot who died in a training mission. we have a special connection to this family because it was his father who was on the space shuttle columbia and that tragically exploded. senator mitchell felt it important that he attend the funeral as well. and course, we hope the memory of assaf ramon's dedicated in honorable service to his country tempers the grief of his family. tomorrow he expects to meet with prime minister netanyahu. he also plans to meet with president of -- abbas.
given that they are going to meet tomorrow and discuss all these issues, let's see what comes out of that meeting tomorrow. our policy, of course, is crystal clear on it. senator mitchell, as well over the weekend, met with president pervez, foreign minister lieberman, and defense minister barak and i am told there were positive and productive. >> right, but after this i mean is in this closing the door -- >> i'm not closing the door to anything especially not with senator mitchell about to sit down with the prime minister tomorrow. >> i'm sorry, one more on iran. you say that it's incumbent on the u.s. to go down this avenue but you're also not interested in a whole new process. so i'm wondering, has the u.s., in speaking with the partners in the p-5+1, given any kind of a limit to this avenue, or what the u.s. expects a bit if it
doesn't go anywhere -- if iran stays not talking on a nuclear program? >> secretary durham speaks out often to his political director colleagues. they have talked about the way to move forward. and as i say, we've -- our patience is not infinite. we are all willing to let this go on forever. i think you have seen president obama talk about a time period that ends this fall. but i think beyond that, i mean, we have not had the opportunity really to get an official response from the iranians on our offer that we made back in april. and so this is why i say we want to take this opportunity to hear from them, face-to-face directly across the table with their choice as in terms of the -- which passed they are going to pursue. >> of north korea, at the end of the last month, p.j. said from
the podium that there was no formal invite to bloodsworth from north korea to engage in talks. and then, of this past friday, he stated that there is an invite that's being considered. can you give more information on when disinvite actually came in, the context, through what channels or kind of leader that a little bit for us? >> yeah, i don't know if i can give you an exact chronology. i know i can't give you exact chronology standing right here. but it was fairly -- the invitation came fairly recently. the topic of this invitation for the ambassador bosworth to go to pyongyang was discussed in the -- during the recent trip of ambassador bosworth to go to pyongyang and discussed with
counterparts the six-party talks but no decision has been made as to whether or not the decision we will accept this invitation for him to go to visit pyongyang. >> well it's been -- its not that recently. it's been, like several weeks or a month, hasn't it, since the invitation came? and gooding you initially designed not to send a bosworth because they wanted to talk about just direct talks between the united states and north korea and not within this expert context? so has it been amended? has the invitation been amended or -- >> i am not aware that it's been amended. i'd think it was a fairly simple, informal invitation that they are willing to talk to ambassador bosworth. >> but it wasn't about going back to the six-party talks; and i correct? >> nope. >> it was about a bilateral dial?
>> right. >> which is why you didn't zandt bosworth -- when you didn't accept the invitation? >> yeah, i mean, what we've said all along is that we will not have any substantiated bilateral talks with north korea the south side of the six party context, that our goal is to get north korea to return to the six party context. six-party talks. and ambassador bosworth went out, ambassador bosworth and ambassador kim went out to the region met with their counterparts to talk about the various avenues that we have to get north korea to return to those talks, and one of the things they talked about was the invitation. >> use of informal invitation. [inaudible] >> i mean, i don't have -- i don't have the answer to that i'm afraid, and i don't know if i will be able to get to the answer to that. yes, also on north korea? >> secretary clinton yesterday had lunch with laura ling and
her family. and was -- what was the purpose of the launch and was the first time secretary clinton met with this reporter after they were released from pyongyang? >> no, she met with them very soon after they returned. she met with them in her office. and she did have lunch with them, but it was a very much private, personal lunch. >> what was the purpose of the launch? >> private and personal. >> was a social lunch? [laughter] it was a private and personal one. >> but you have to people that were hostage or that were detained in north korea and they are coming in -- >> it wasn't a debrief if that is what you're implying. she didn't delete could it have a formal sit down with them right after they returned. >> but what was the purpose of the launch? >> she was invited to lunch and accepted the invitation. >> so they invited her to launch? >> well, again, it was private
and personal. >> one more question? >> a question about the afghan election. in afghanistan, still the process is very complicated and people is waiting for the result. but what do you think about the election go to the second round? is a possibility or what is the u.s. policy about this? >> well, we have been calling on all sides to be patient, let the whole process play out. and i going to take your own advice and not speculate on whether or not there will be or should be a second round. we have said all along that we bought these allegations of fraud to be very seriously considered and farrelly investigated, and there is a process to do this. so we want to let this process have a chance to work. >> after eight years of 9/11, osama bin laden again had another tape and it's been eight years now. before he is to appear on camera
with the video and audio and everything but now for the last several tapes only audio. do you believe he's still alive? and who delivers where they deliver all these tapes? >> i don't know. but i will tell you, no matter what he says, it doesn't do anything to gloss over or dress up the very start indisputable fact that al qaeda murders of innocent people indiscriminately -- women, children, muslims, christians, jews. and -- but i can't tell you exactly why they do for you and why they do ogle. frankly, i don't care. >> sorry. >> yeah. >> back to the u.s.-china trade dispute, i was just wondering what are the arguments to state that this new tariff on the tires is not a protectionist
measure? >> well, i tell you, i have got to refer you to ustr on that. you really have to ask the experts. there is a public affairs office at ustr. >> do you have anything about the latest incident in somalia? >> i don't. i'd seen press reports from the bbc about -- there was -- >> do you know what i'm talking about? >> i do know what you're talking about because i'd seen press reports from bbc. >> i don't know what the bbc reported, so i have no idea. >> there was a shooting incident allegedly by foreign forces. >> yeah, helicopters. >> i have to refer you to the dod on that one. i don't have any other information. >> thank you. >> thank you. next, questions from the canadian house of commons where the canadian prime minister and his cabinet deal with questions
from members. this is the first question period since the members return from their summer recess. prime minister steven harper can face a no-confidence vote later this month which could lead to another national election. this 45 minute event is courtesy of cpac and contains some french with english translation. [applause] the [cheering] [speaking in french] >> translator: mr. speaker, today we are paying tribute to to soldier killed in action
yesterday and we pay tribute to his sacrifice. closed doors last week the prime minister stated if there were to be an election, he would like to keep canadians, those are his very words. after four years of failure and for eckert deficit, unprecedented levels of unemployment, is he really in a position to give canadians a lesson? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. [speaking in french] >> translator: mr. speaker, the leader of opposition started by mentioning that the death of a soldier in afghanistan protecting our values, protecting us from the great dangers, and we offer them our thoughts and prayers. we offer thoughts and prayers to
there, rods and families. [applause] [speaking in french] >> translator: the honorable leader of opposition. >> i find it after weeks of. colish and prime minister seems to be hard at work forming himself and people he referred to until this morning as socialists. i'm just wondering whether the prime minister could confirm his new-found love for socialism and does he not think it prudent to change his attack ads? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, the leader of the opposition is flailing around trying to invent reasons why canadians should have another election in four years.
the fact of the matter mr. speaker is this -- the fact of the matter is canadians, canadians do not want an election, canada does not need any election. an election is not in the country's best interest. we have important economic measures and we should be focused on those measures and on the economy and we should focus on the country's best interest p [applause] >> the honorable leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, just a year ago the prime minister promised canada five years of surplus and then he told us that his recession would be a great body opportunity and he slapped canada with a 32 billion-dollar deficit. that went to 50, and now it's 56. and he's going to make canadians pay for it with higher payroll taxes. the question is this: how can
canadians trust a government with this record? the problem of instability, mr. prime minister, is you. [applause] >> the leader of the opposition is and to make direct references to other colleagues. the honorable prime [inaudible] >> mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, canada has been affected by the global recession that's affected every country. admired by many in the world. canada is in a strong position. our deficit while large mr. speaker are nonetheless some of the smallest in the developed world. they are necessary to help people but stimulus spending must end at the end of this recession and we must return to surplus. i would invite the leader of opposition since he has yet any
comprehensive agenda at all, i invited him since the budget last january if he has anything to say on the economy i would invite him to bring it here so we can debate. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my question is also for the prime minister. in light of the extraordinary -- in light of the extraordinary attacks on the health care system by the people who apparently have given the prime minister such spiritual inspiration over the years, i would like to ask the prime minister a very simple question. is the prime minister proud of our health care system, mr. speaker? [applause] >> mr. speaker, it is the only system my family has ever used and we are depending on it in the future. [applause]
>> order. order. order order. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. speaker in light of that answer perhaps the prime minister can explain the astonishing silence of the government of canada. when our system has been under attack for several months might right-wing forces in the united states -- in particular -- [inaudible conversations] >> order. the speaker is having a difficult time hearing the question and i would appreciate the assistance from my colleagues. the honorable member. >> mr. speaker i would like to ask the prime minister a very simple question. does the government plan to
launch a significant defense of the canadian system in light of the attack it's been made in the united states of america? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. >> welcome mr. speaker, we intend to have the united states make its own decisions on domestic debates. i will say this, mr. speaker, the canadian health care system will not only survive attacks by right-wing commentators on the united states, and even survive one by left-wing incompetence on the ontario. [applause] [cheering] >> [inaudible conversations] >> order.
order. [speaking in french] >> translator: the honorable duceppe. mr. speaker, the number of crimes have been increasing and is time to take action to fight against an economic crime. they are tabling a bill today that is designed to abolish provisions so that to allow for these kinds of crimes to enable people to serve one sixth of their sentence and with approval of the house this bill could pass all three readings and one day. will the prime minister of rather support the prime minister and be adopted as early as tuesday? the honorable prime minister. mr. speaker must point out is this change in position for the block. mr. speaker, when this government put forth measures to eliminate certain provisions for these criminals, a coalition of
the block and the ndp was opposed, in fact. and defeated these proposals in the house and mr. speaker the bloc tabled the bill and we will , and you will hear our proposals with respect to the bill shortly. [applause] [speaking in french] >> translator: the prime minister has never proposed to abolish release after serving 16 tough one sentences, and our bill deals exclusively with that. it isn't a poison pill. the government is accustomed to using that. there is consensus on this issue in quebec. will the prime minister take action and act in good faith and get his support on tuesday to the bloc's bill be signed to abolish released after serving
one sixth of one sentence? [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: the prime minister. mr. speaker, we don't need to parole when we have the situation that we have coming and that is why we have made the proposals we have. but, mr. speaker, i have met with quebec and with investors who were calling for harsher penalties, but also securities, they also called for securities commission, national securities commission we have put forth that initiative. the provinces have the option of participating in the system on a voluntary basis. [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: mr. speaker, we need to deal with tax havens so that these criminals can't hide money that has been stolen from
small investors, liberals and conservatives have not shown any willingness to deal with tax havens. for example, in the last budget supported by the liberals, the conservatives went back on their provinces to deal with the issue of double coverage and they continue to do so with respect to barbados. will the prime minister put in place some strong measures in order to deal with tax havens. [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: the minister of national revenue. mr. speaker, as you know tax havens is a concern, concern for the government and we are working on it. we have focused on the issue of [inaudible] and to inform the opposite since we have been moving in this direction, 12 people who have tax havens abroad, 12 out of 38 have already filled out a voluntary disclosure, which has brought in $4.2 million into the government so when people know we are moving into the right direction and take tax havens
and want to injure people who are avoiding paying their taxes are taken to task. [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: tax havens are also responsible for the erosion of federal government revenues. instead of taking this money out of the pockets of the unemployed like the liberals did in the past, the government should start attacking people who don't pay their taxes in the first place. will the minister of international trade commit to not signing a free trade agreement with the countries that are facing actions or accusations by the oecd in countries like panama? [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: the honorable minister -- [inaudible conversations] >> translator: the honorable minister of international revenue. ann arbor conversations
mr. speaker it is interesting to see that at this point tax havens is being discussed in public. i've talked about 12 cases out of their gate, where steps have 40 been taken to make voluntary disclosures come and this has happened in other areas house well. two out of 36 on ebay have made voluntary disclosures. as, mr. speaker, the government is taking this issue very seriously and moving in the right direction. [applause] >> the honorable member for toronto mr. leighton. >> [speaking in french] >> translator: they have elected the government and in this case it is the obligation of the government to work with opposition parties. does the prime minister, however, is continuing to stubborn the government as if he had majority. does the prime minister understand that his attitude is
leading us to the possibility of an election within one year of the last? >> the great honorable prime minister. >> [speaking in french] >> translator: it is clear that the people understand we do not need any election in this country. it's not in the best interest of the country, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the priority for this government and the people of canada is the economy and i would encourage all parties to take a close look at them and to debate the proposals. [applause] >> the prime minister goes around and assaulting people and calling names. he won't work with other members or other parties. [booing] maybe he has gotten used to this with 79 votes in a row from the official position without even getting anything in return.
the fact is that canadians are reeling from the impact of this recession, mr. speaker. they are looking for action. they are looking for help and they are looking for it now. is the prime minister willing to work with other party is or is he going to continue his attitude of his way or the highway? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, the public's number-one concern is the economy. it is certainly not an election. the economy -- the population has been very supportive of the economic measures this government has brought forth. this government is already bringing for additional measures today. i hope all parties will examine those measures, mr. speaker. i think population has a right to expect all parties in the house will honestly examine those measures, decide whether or not they are good for the economy before deciding whether to vote for or against them. [applause] >> the honorable member mr. layton. >> parliament can get good things done.
we have medicare adopted, we have the canada pension plan adopted, the canadian flag, the list is long of what minority parliament can do. even the liberal party managed to get something done in a minority parliament on things like trends and housing and post secondary education when they chose to work with the new democrats. it is the choice mr. speaker, will keep the dust on the road to an election or will he work with other parliamentarians? will he work with us or will he provoke an election campaign? which one will it be? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. order, please. >> mr. speaker it is clear this government will be voting to precede with parliament, proceed with economic agenda. this party will be voting against an election campaign. that is exactly what canadians expect. [applause] but mr. speaker, a lot of things are being done. infrastructure projects across the country, help for the former will come improvement to unemployment insurance benefits. and, mr. speaker, all parties
should get behind these positive things for the canadian economy and not waste their time with an opportunistic election campaign. [applause] >> [speaking in french] >> translator: on september, 2008, despite the day to the prime minister had chosen, he violated and he said we are dealing with the left-wing archaeologists, and i would like to point out that there are people who are working -- working for marginalized groups and women are not in that group. when will the prime minister admit that he is attempting to impose on canadians his great winged reformist program, his right-wing reform based program? [applause]
will the conservatives now and tell canadians which groups are on their blacklist for special scrutiny? [applause] >> it is then the ods allegation. [inaudible] in fact we have the an orderly transfer of delegated authorities on this side of the house and yet they create these conspiracies ago this fallacy that we have this anti-women the agenda. mr. speaker, and that she should apologize right now by marginalizing-- [applause]
>> mr. speaker, at last week's economic-- talks about a major increase in premiums for canadians. in july, when the prime minister was out that he was going to increase taxes he stated and i quote, that is a stupid policy, a very stupid one. now that his own minister of finance has talked about a significant increase, does the prime minister still believe it is a stupid policy? [applause] >> project 2008 we put forward an independent arm's length employment insurance financial board that would determine premiums independently so they would be on a break-even basis over a length of time. going forward, that will be the way rates are set. what we will not do however is
that premiums so that we have a great surplus with-- >> while imposing our institutes that its 43% increase in the employment premiums. canadians understand that premiums don't go up by magic. they go up because this conservative government wants them to go up. a tax height is a tax hike. with when it comes to simply telling the truth, how canadians believe anything this government tells them? [applause] >> mr. speaker let's face it, to stimulate our economy during, within our economic action plan we froze the premiums for two
years ago that has to advantages mr. speaker. one, health employers keep their employees without incurring additional costs and make sure we keep more of their hard-earned money during these tough economic times. the opposition supported that. we support that going forward. the employment insurance financing board will set rates at arm's length some of the fund will the balance on an ongoing basis and not used as a liberal -- for political projects. >> mr. speaker the conservatives like the liberals are moving forward with a proposal to resolve the deficit won't work. if we look, they are talking about making changes to the employment insurance plan. while unemployed people are suffering, the oil companies are making record prophets and having tax relief. how can the government explain what it is doing for the oil companies that don't need this
type of assistance and it is on testified tax on the unemployed in this country. >> mr. speaker, the question that the member should ask is this. will our government support this government, because we are putting forth modifications so that long-term workers to have lost their jobs and are thinking about people and forestry the work going to be given more weeks of coverage for these long-term workers who paid into the unemployment insurance. will her party support workers? will they support the government on this? >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, with respect to the employment insurance, we need to see a complete overhaul to the system. the conservatives promised to do things differently and now they are simply preparing to imitate the liberals and they are going
to make the unemployed and through premiums paid for the deficit. why is the government not accepting instead to help people by supporting c308 which was put forth by the law and defeated this morning in the house? >> if the honorable minister of national revenue. >> mr. speaker of the like to point out to the member that this morning we confirmed that the premium rates would remain the same for 2010, so there wouldn't be an increase in premiums, and several months ago we put in place a system to add an additional five weeks to help people facing economic difficulties. we are helping our employers by authorizing word should-- work sharing and some 160,000 people are benefiting from that so we are also helping people with transition training and we have provided all these measures.
>> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, after a great deal of delayed the government has decided to adopt the home renovation tax credit, a measure proposed by the block web mckay in the past. this is wearing people who have renovated their house and could harm the economy and the program. will the conservative government acts decisively and have a ways and means motion adopted this week to have this tax credit go forward without combining it with other tax measures acceptable for the block or other opposition parties? that is the question. >> the honorable member of finance. >> we are going to continue to implement the budget measures. yes the palm renovation tax credit is a very important part of the budget of the economic action plan for can add up. it is very well-known and run the country and many people want to use it so i hope the house
will support this budget measure when it is presented to the house by a notice of ways and means for coburn. [applause] >> with as is the case for the renovation tax credit the government could act quickly and support the bill proposing increases in the use of wood in federal buildings. the minister of economic development says he wanted to familiarize himself with the bill before stating his case. now, the bill was tabled three months ago. coalition advocated the use of what will be launched in quebec tomorrow. can the minister tell us today whether his government intends to support the build? what. >> the honorable minister of public works. >> if you want to talk concretely, public works as a budget of $400 million,
323 million for renovation of buildings? that is an economic stimulus plan and the would component is increased because there is extra work being done. the same with the home renovation tax credit. the block voted against these good economic measures for its own reasons and that is a disgraceful-- [applause] >> mr. speaker, to the prime minister, after analyzing his government's infrastructure promises we now know why there has been so little real construction. a the vellis his cabinet members arguing among themselves that is delayed things for months. four are represented by his cabinet ministers including the minister responsible, the minister for transportation in the fifth by his parliament secretary. how does the prime minister explain the 408,000 canadian families who became the unemployment last year and his
cabinet is too busy trying to-- for the jobs needed. [applause] >> in fact mr. speaker we are not the government that makes decisions unilaterally. we work with other premiers like premiere williams perhaps, premiere mcginty, municipal leaders of all political stripes mr. speaker, on the projects and indeed they are going across this land not only in the writings he mentioned but of course last week, last week and more projects with halifax, a new project for toronto mr. speaker, half a billion dollars for more than 500 projects. will that is what we are doing for canada, that is what we are doing for these regions. [applause] >> mr. speaker it is unfortunate prime minister as they glued to his seat because the minister that got up even some 20 project, five times as many fort dix recreation center says the average and across the country
mr. speaker that ministers of transportation and his two colleagues in ottawa have and an unemployment rate one-half of that of the rest of the province and yet they are giving themselves to to four times as much money for infrastructure stimulus part of their leading 400,000 people a workforce the size of new brunswick abandoned across the country. mr. speaker, why should anybody trust his government? [applause] the honorable minister of industry. >> we are proud of our constituents and i'm proud of the hardware guide to. perhaps the honorable member would like to know that the highest per-capita spending anywhere in the country is windsor, ontario mr. speaker. everybody gets the benefit mrs. shakir pickle that is why this government is a government for all of the people.
>> mr. speaker, time and again this government fails to stand up for canadians with names like beh abdul and mohammed. canadian citizenship means the prime minister mass stand-up for canadians whoever they are, wherever they may be. a canadian is a canadian is a canadian mr. speaker but with his record how can canadians trust this speaker to provide equal protection of broad when they are in trouble? [applause] >> mr. speaker, i want to assure everyone in this house that yes a canadian is a canadian is a canadian and this government at any given time, our record is clear on that issue. i make it very clear to everyone out there that this government will stand behind any canadian, whatever they are. [applause]
one. >> mr. speaker, the record belies the contention just made. i am a proud canadian and i have proud children and grandchildren who are proud canadians. gibbon he has failed in his duty to protect some canadians abroad, my children and their grandchildren trust the prime minister to stand up for them if they ever need help abroad. in the eyes of this government are some canadians not really canadians because for the liberal party of canada mr. speaker a canadian is a canadian is a canadian. [applause] >> mr. speaker of the honorable member, i am also very proud to be canadian and so are my children mr. speaker. [applause] let me assure him he is talking about-- it happened when they
were in power mr. speaker. this government will stand for law-abiding canadians and i want to say that canadian is a canadian is a canadian and it is a canadian. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. honorable members may be aware there was a very objectionable piece of literature circulated last week by an opposition member and a former cabinet minister suggesting that canadians are no longer proud of our flag and this government has turned its back on proud canadian on diplomacy, peacekeeping, a human-rights and international development. can the minister inform this house about our government's reaction to this in sinuation? [applause] >> mr. speaker, indeed that piece of literature was circulated by calm to canada's
largest military base in. for a member of this chamber to suggest that canadians should not be proud of their flag is no place in this country's political system. the party opposite that canadians have in their country in the good work it does abroad is despicable mr. speaker. it is particularly offensive to make such disparaging remarks to members of the canadian forces and their families, the men and women who risk their lives every day for country, the proudly wearing the canadian flag on their shoulder mr. speaker. our men and women in uniform and the good work that they do. [applause] >> the honorable member, thank you mr. speaker. msenge the director months of doing nothing to help the unemployed, the government has finally decided to take a step
in the right direction. but thousands of workers have remained, have been left with no protection during this on precedent crisis. the failure of negotiations with the liberals behind closed doors was predictable. it was the liberals to cause the problems in employment insurance. changes to the aei system are needed. when will we see some comprehensive proposals to compensate for the problems created by the liberals? >> the honorable minister. >> the member is right to be worried about what is going on with the liberals. we had a apartheid commission that was supposed to work seriously with us. they abandoned the committee and we are showing we are serious. we want to help the unemployed who have been long employed. we will give them five to 20 weeks more benefits and soon, we will be telling you more about our will to help these
self-employed. the honorable member. >> it is not the end of the recession for the unemployed. according to the td bank job losses for workers aged 25 to 54 have been that deteriorative pastoral for the past ten months than they did during 80s and 90s recessions. mr. speaker to many have been left behind already. when is the government going to complete the job and introduce the legislation to help the self-employed just referred to protect pensioners, something we agree upon and protect consumers from gouging by banks and credit card companies? [applause] >> we are very sensitive to the needs of the unemployed. we brought in an additional five weeks of benefits, of regular benefits. we increased the amount the maximum that people can collect by an extra five weeks ago we expanded work sharing mr. speaker and we are helping people get back to work through unprecedented investments in training. i should point out mr. speaker
that the ndp voted against every single one of those initiatives to help our unemployed. [applause] >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker and national assembly has stated unanimously that the federal government is not respecting jurisdictions over securities. all parties unanimously have demanded the transfer of federal lands facing the national assembly as well as financial compensation linked to the harmonization of the quebec sales tax with the federal sales tax. does the federal government intend to respond favorably to this unanimous resolution by the national assembly are willing to imitate the liberals before them and turn a deaf ear to the legitimate demands of quebec? [applause] >> the honorable member-- minister of public works.
>> mr. speaker you have the government that is practicing open federalism finally. negotiations on harmonization cannot be done publicly but they will be done in good faith. that is what the quebec government did. the premiere came june 24. the prime minister winds you say he was prepared to start negotiations about the land facing the national assembly buildings. when you look of the securities commission i repeat once again because these people did not hear this is a voluntary approach. i am repeating, voluntary. there is no encouragement of jurisdiction here. >> recognition of the quebec nation by this government was so much smoke and mirrors. quebec may be present on the international scene, provided it shuts up as the liberals wanted. unesco, quebec is welcome and the climate change conference in
copenhagen but apparently quebecan candidate have to speak with a single voice. how can the government be critical when it says the nation denied that nation the right to be heard abroad on issues that concern it directly? >> the honorable minister of the environment. >> i met with premier. our government is working. it is in federal corporation but canada will speak with us. our approach is to fight climate change in a climate of economic crisis we will targets greenhouse gas emitters and on this issue we are not spectators like the block. the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, regarding the conservatives seem to be on the
road toward deathbed conversion. under the liberals premiums for reduced welk. the prime minister in july said that it was stupid to increase the premiums so how would he qualified the decision made by the finance minister who says he is going to raise premiums? >> the honorable minister of national revenue. once again i would like to say we clearly indicated this morning that no, in 2009/2010 premiums will not be increased. they will stay the same. why? i think that is a fair question. why did the liberals of man and the unemployed? in june they were prepared to take part in a committee to suggest measures to help the unemployed. they abandoned them. we didn't. today we are proposing assistance to the people who have been working in a long time so they could have long benefits, up to 20 weeks.
mr. speaker, none of our proposals were heard by this government. it is complete chaos in the world of thee i. the finance minister tells us the premiums will go up. the minister of human-resources try to have us believe that the changes she wants will not lead to an increase in premiums. is this because the finance minister has already made the decision to increase them that she can pretend to be so generous today? the honorable minister of national revenue. mr. speaker allow me to tell you all the measures we put in place to support workers. first of all we extended the ei period by five weeks. then we held companies, we held employees by extending work sharing to 52 weeks. today we announced other measures to help people who have
been working a long time in mining, forestry, manufacturing among other things, the auto sector too. people who have paid premiums for years, we want to help them by giving them five to 20 weeks of extra benefits. will we be supported in this? >> mr. speaker they say there are two certainties in life, death and taxes and this by men-- prime minister wants to hit both with the scheme and the liberals have foolishly signed on so now british colombians will have to pay 7% more for essentials like food, haircuts, vitamins and even funerals. mr. speaker why is this conservative government hell-bent on raising taxes at a time when many these seers are struggling to pay their bills every day? [applause] >> the honorable minister of finance. >> mr. speaker the decision by the providence on whether not to
harmonize its the decision for the provincial government to take. dezaun decision made by the federal government. the proposal with respect to harmonization is in the budget repeatedly. years ago under the liberal government that runs nova scotia and other provinces chose to harmonize some additional provinces are now making that decision. it is a decision for them to make. [applause] >> the prime minister wants people to believe he had nothing to do with raising their taxes and yet he offered them $4.3 billion if they harmonized their sales tax. babb briber ten ontario families will now be paying 8% now on vitamins, transit tickets, power bill send even funerals. increasing the tax burden on hard-working families is simply the wrong approach. will the finance ministers of playing ontarians for fools and and this liberal conservative
tax streb? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> as i said the same proposal is there for all the provinces that have not yet harmonized and that is their decision. i say to the member opposite that it is passing strange use arguing about tax reductions because our party is the party that voted against reducing the gst. this is the party there reduces taxes. that is the party that raises taxes. [applause] >> mr. speaker, while the leader of the liberal party continues to put his personal aspirations ahead of canadians with talk of an on wanted the election our conservative government is working to deliver results for canadians hit hardest by the global recession. many of these workers are in karabell. can the minister of human-resources tell us what our government is doing for those
workers? [applause] >> our conservative government is proposing additional support to workers with ada premiums for years while they look for jobs in our recovering economy. we intend to table legislation that will provide up to 20 weeks of additional aei regular benefits to unemployed long tenured workers because mr. speaker is that they are in right thing to do. by contrast the liberals will continue to push their irresponsible and very expansive 45 day work week. that is not for us. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the people of newfoundland and labrador are reeling from yet another tragedy at sea. eyes rescue efforts continue for one missing crew member questions are again being asked about the adequate availability of such search and rescue service. i ask the minister responsible for search and rescue, given this most recent tragedy off our
coast will the minister now to a total review of search and rescue service in the province of newfoundland and labrador? [applause] >> like the member opposite and i am sure all of the members of this house, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those affected by the loss and the ongoing search of those affected by the sinking of the ec gypsy. we monitor regularly conditions with respect to search and rescue. this particular issue around the placement of search and rescue assets has been one that has required a great deal of attention and i assure the member opposite that one hercules aircraft is on standby now. we continue to work with coast guard of respect to this particular situation and mr. speaker i assure the member opposite we will-- >> thank you mr. speaker.
mr. speaker liberals and conservatives are responsible for the crisis of medical isotopes. the federal government is responsible for this crisis and has an obligation to compensate the provinces who for many months now have had to deal with the disastrous consequences of successive federal governments. can the government confirm that it is prepared to welcome any demand for financial compensation by the government of quebec? >> the honorable minister. >> in fact i will be meeting with the provincial health ministers this week in winnipeg to discuss this very issue. thank you mr. speaker. [applause] >> sockeye salmon vanished during the migration and dropped with the collapse. nothing less than a